By Leanne Maskell
As AuDHD – the co-occurence of autism and ADHD – awareness grows, employers face new legal and cultural challenges. Here, Leanne Maskell explores how equality law applies to neurodivergent employees, why single-condition approaches fall short, and how proactive, systemic inclusion strategies can reduce legal risk while supporting innovation, wellbeing, and performance.
When diagnostic manuals changed in 2013 to allow dual diagnosis of autism and ADHD, few employers anticipated the legal complexity this would create. Today, with research suggesting up to 70% of autistic individuals also meet ADHD criteria, organisations face a pressing challenge: how to support employees whose neurodivergence doesn’t fit neatly into pre-defined boxes.
The term AuDHD describes this co-occurrence, and it represents far more than a new buzzword. For businesses, it signals a fundamental shift in how workplace disability law must be understood and applied.
The Legal Reality
Under equality legislation including the Equality Act 2010, both autism and ADHD can be recognised as disabilities, triggering mandatory duties for employers to provide reasonable adjustments. However, many AuDHD employees remain undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, with research indicating that between 89-97% of autistic adults over 40 have never received a formal diagnosis.
The legal test for disability is precisely that: legal, not medical. Formal diagnosis is not required for an employer’s proactive duties to be triggered, which means that employers cannot simply wait for disclosure or diagnoses. Once they become aware, or reasonably should have become aware, that an employee may be disabled, legal obligations commence.
Employment tribunal claims relating to disability discrimination have surged, rising by a third in just one year in the UK. With compensation awards uncapped, and cases occasionally reaching millions of pounds, the financial risk is substantial. The average award runs to tens of thousands, but recent cases include a £4.5 million settlement for an employee with ADHD and PTSD dismissed during probation.
Why AuDHD Complicates Compliance
Single-condition approaches to neurodiversity risk falling short of legal duties. When autism and ADHD co-occur, traits interact in complex ways. ADHD may drive impulsivity and rapid decision-making, while autism brings a preference for structure and routine. This combination can produce both exceptional problem-solving capabilities and internal conflict.
Similarly, autism’s capacity for intense, sustained focus combines with ADHD’s interest-driven nervous system to create employees who excel dramatically in areas of passion but struggle with mundane administrative tasks. As a result, performance may appear inconsistent through a conventional lens, but makes perfect sense when both conditions are understood together.
Employers who implement adjustments designed solely for autism or ADHD in isolation may inadvertently disadvantage AuDHD employees, exposing themselves to discrimination claims from individuals who don’t fit the expected profile.
Practical Strategies for Legal Protection
Rather than attempting to master every diagnostic nuance, organisations should focus on systemic approaches:
- Implement neuroaffirmative training that moves beyond labels. Train all staff to recognise signs of vulnerability and approach colleagues with curiosity rather than judgment. This reduces the fear of disclosure while equipping teams to handle difficult conversations constructively.
- Ensure managers understand their legal exposure. Managers and HR professionals can be held personally liable for failures to meet legal obligations around disability. They don’t need to become medical experts, but must recognise their duty of care and understand when to seek guidance.
- Create robust, accessible policies. Clear reasonable adjustments policies ensure consistency and accountability, providing straightforward processes that anyone can follow with confidence. Policies should explicitly state that adjustments aren’t limited to specific diagnostic labels, reducing barriers for those with complex or co-occurring conditions.
- Consider specialist coaching resources. Building in-house AuDHD coaching expertise allows organisations to navigate industry-specific requirements while demonstrating genuine commitment to inclusion. This transforms potential legal liabilities into competitive advantages.
Beyond Compliance
The business case extends far beyond risk mitigation. With 51% of neurodivergent employees reporting time off work due to their neurodivergence, and workplace absences at 15-year highs, the cost of inadequate support is measurable – and significant.
Providing adjustments purely out of legal obligation leads to reactive firefighting. Employers who instead tailor environments to individuals unlock not just compliance, but creativity, loyalty and innovation. When almost 1 in 4 people are disabled under the legal definition, supporting all employees effectively isn’t a niche concern, but a core business strategy.
The legal framework around AuDHD is complex simply because human neurology is complex. However, the fundamental principle remains straightforward: understand difference, support it systematically, and treat legal compliance as the floor, not the ceiling, of workplace inclusion. This isn’t about special treatment for individuals, but updating workplace cultures for the realities of our post-pandemic world, making them work for every mind.
Leanne Maskell
